Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2014/01/25 22:53:36
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
I have yet to see anybody who buys GW models as "models to paint" and not "Models to play their wargames with" that could support the sales they need, Mantic could have been just a miniatures manufacturer making models to be played by other wargames, but they chose to be a wargames manufacturer and they sell a complete system, despite how some people may purchase their products, they will be judged as what they are.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/25 22:53:51
2014/01/25 23:12:08
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
PsychoticStorm wrote: I have yet to see anybody who buys GW models as "models to paint" and not "Models to play their wargames with" that could support the sales they need, Mantic could have been just a miniatures manufacturer making models to be played by other wargames, but they chose to be a wargames manufacturer and they sell a complete system, despite how some people may purchase their products, they will be judged as what they are.
I buy 90% of my miniatures for painting and modeling now. But only because unfortunately I get so few opportunities or time to play. When you buy to model your expenditure goes down yes but I probably buy more quality models, FW etc as I never need mass amounts of models.
If I play a game now with a friend we will decide what we want to play and if we don't own the unit we cut out a bit of paper write whatever the unit is on it and hey presto that's what it is. No way will I ever buy a unit just to only play. To make a full investment I need to love the look of a model.
I know some people would be aghast at this but I dont care. My bank account looks good and I still enjoy my hobby!
EAT - SLEEP - FARM - REPEAT
2014/01/25 23:22:09
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
azreal13 wrote: No, the argument is Mantic pricing isn't keen, that's the argument you put forward and have singularly failed to support other than with some disingenuous cherry picking and a healthy dose of attempted tangentery.
You keep throwing around that "cherry-picking" argument, but it doesn't.
I picked a basic box from their currently most popular game, DreadBall (putting Deadzone into the "not-yet-released" part) and it is fething expensive as miniatures go (if you consider GW expensive that is, neither are up there in the DZC, Malifaux, KD spheres yet, admittedly).
You asked me to take a look at KoW (which I admittedly don't know anything about), and it's just as expensive - in the GW price-range or slightly below - with the exception of some very few of loss-leading army-deals/starter-bundles.
The only way I could cherry pick this is if I were to point to those starter-boxes that break their normal prices.
And pricier miniatures is ok if you need less of them? How about I invent a game that only needs 1 miniature to play, would it be ok if I charge 50 quid for each of them? Would you pay your GW twice what they ask for, if you buy minis "only for Kill Team"?
If those miniatures were good quality, and Kill Team was a distinct, Necromunda/Mordheim-esque game system? Yes. I've bought boutique resin miniatures to use in Mordheim or INQ28 warbands that cost the same or more than GW miniatures. Again though, you're comparing apples to zepplins; Kill Team is NOT a standalone small model-count game, you need the main 40K rules and the codex for any army you want to use, and the hardback rulebook alone costs the same or more than I paid for any of GW's old SG starter boxes that included everything you needed to play the game including full-size rulebooks, two factions of models, dice, whippy-sticks etc etc.
So what if I just buy stuff for painting? What if I buy a Box of Dark Eldar Wyches to convert to DreadBall? What if I buy Mantic's more expensive Deadzone stuff to play huge 40KApoc games? How do you "price" miniatures that don't even have a game to go with (Kingdom Death Pin-Ups, say, or some of GW's Games Day figures?)
There is no uniform benchmark to put a "game-relative" price on a miniature. A miniature is expensive or it isn't compared to similar miniatures from other manufacturers. Hitching the argument to the game is just opening up all sorts of personal biases.
Lets break this down easy for you: dwarf warrior box from GW vs Mantic. 16 dwarves from GW is $35. With Mantic you have two options: 10 for $15 or 20 for $25. Either are a better deal. You comparing 5 "dwarf berserkers" in metal to 16 dwarf warriors in plastic and seeing what you want to see is either ignorant or purposefully obtuse. And let's go with the dreadball stuff: it's restic. Compare that to PP prices of similar amounts for an accurate portrayal, as both companies use restic and GW doesn't. Once you compare accurate numbers, people might be interested in seeing your viewpoint as anything other than antagonistic.
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
2014/01/25 23:36:03
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
PsychoticStorm wrote: I have yet to see anybody who buys GW models as "models to paint" and not "Models to play their wargames with" that could support the sales they need, Mantic could have been just a miniatures manufacturer making models to be played by other wargames, but they chose to be a wargames manufacturer and they sell a complete system, despite how some people may purchase their products, they will be judged as what they are.
I buy 90% of my miniatures for painting and modeling now. But only because unfortunately I get so few opportunities or time to play. When you buy to model your expenditure goes down yes but I probably buy more quality models, FW etc as I never need mass amounts of models.
If I play a game now with a friend we will decide what we want to play and if we don't own the unit we cut out a bit of paper write whatever the unit is on it and hey presto that's what it is. No way will I ever buy a unit just to only play. To make a full investment I need to love the look of a model.
I know some people would be aghast at this but I dont care. My bank account looks good and I still enjoy my hobby!
EAT - SLEEP - FARM - REPEAT
2014/01/25 23:36:27
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
timetowaste85 wrote: Lets break this down easy for you: dwarf warrior box from GW vs Mantic. 16 dwarves from GW is $35. With Mantic you have two options: 10 for $15 or 20 for $25. Either are a better deal. You comparing 5 "dwarf berserkers" in metal to 16 dwarf warriors in plastic and seeing what you want to see is either ignorant or purposefully obtuse. And let's go with the dreadball stuff: it's restic. Compare that to PP prices of similar amounts for an accurate portrayal, as both companies use restic and GW doesn't. Once you compare accurate numbers, people might be interested in seeing your viewpoint as anything other than antagonistic.
Precisely. I priced out the Mantic undead boxed army (141 figures) for $175 versus the same number of figures from GW and it came to $588 when you counted the rules and army book; it could have been lowered a tiny bit by substituting a unit of Grave Guard for a normal Skeleton unit to correspond to Mantic's Skeleton Revenants. Mantic still wins hands down when you compare prices of units, mostly because GW charges for 10 when you typically need 20, so for nearly every Mantic box I had to count 2 GW boxes; it would be much closer if GW actually put decent numbers in the box, but still not anywhere near getting that many figures for under $200, especially since $120 is the rulebook and army book alone, and that's why Mantic IMO is a much better company, even with flaws of certain figures (which still don't look that bad to me). $175 buys me in; I can get an entire army for the same price as GW's rules and a single unit if I'm lucky. Not to mention the fact the rules are much more streamlined and reward actual tactics and strategy versus penalizing people for not picking certain OP units like WHFB and 40K do.
I could convince a lot more people to play a game if I told them $175 gets them an entire army to play versus a shopping list that comes out to $500 or more.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/01/25 23:42:23
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2014/01/26 00:57:39
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
timetowaste85 wrote: Lets break this down easy for you: dwarf warrior box from GW vs Mantic. 16 dwarves from GW is $35. With Mantic you have two options: 10 for $15 or 20 for $25. Either are a better deal. You comparing 5 "dwarf berserkers" in metal to 16 dwarf warriors in plastic and seeing what you want to see is either ignorant or purposefully obtuse. And let's go with the dreadball stuff: it's restic. Compare that to PP prices of similar amounts for an accurate portrayal, as both companies use restic and GW doesn't. Once you compare accurate numbers, people might be interested in seeing your viewpoint as anything other than antagonistic.
Precisely. I priced out the Mantic undead boxed army (141 figures) for $175 versus the same number of figures from GW and it came to $588 when you counted the rules and army book; it could have been lowered a tiny bit by substituting a unit of Grave Guard for a normal Skeleton unit to correspond to Mantic's Skeleton Revenants. Mantic still wins hands down when you compare prices of units, mostly because GW charges for 10 when you typically need 20, so for nearly every Mantic box I had to count 2 GW boxes; it would be much closer if GW actually put decent numbers in the box, but still not anywhere near getting that many figures for under $200, especially since $120 is the rulebook and army book alone, and that's why Mantic IMO is a much better company, even with flaws of certain figures (which still don't look that bad to me). $175 buys me in; I can get an entire army for the same price as GW's rules and a single unit if I'm lucky. Not to mention the fact the rules are much more streamlined and reward actual tactics and strategy versus penalizing people for not picking certain OP units like WHFB and 40K do.
I could convince a lot more people to play a game if I told them $175 gets them an entire army to play versus a shopping list that comes out to $500 or more.
Whats funny is that GW is planing to reduce unit sizes (decreasing overal model count) and not prices, to make the game more accessible. How many of you want to bet this will put another nail in the coffin and we start seeing alternative armies (mainly mantic) sprout everywhere because they could build them with something like $80-100, so why the hell not make a fully sized army instead of getting 2-3 boxes of marines or what ever have you?.
2014/01/26 01:14:53
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
timetowaste85 wrote: Lets break this down easy for you: dwarf warrior box from GW vs Mantic. 16 dwarves from GW is $35. With Mantic you have two options: 10 for $15 or 20 for $25. Either are a better deal. You comparing 5 "dwarf berserkers" in metal to 16 dwarf warriors in plastic and seeing what you want to see is either ignorant or purposefully obtuse. And let's go with the dreadball stuff: it's restic. Compare that to PP prices of similar amounts for an accurate portrayal, as both companies use restic and GW doesn't. Once you compare accurate numbers, people might be interested in seeing your viewpoint as anything other than antagonistic.
Precisely. I priced out the Mantic undead boxed army (141 figures) for $175 versus the same number of figures from GW and it came to $588 when you counted the rules and army book; it could have been lowered a tiny bit by substituting a unit of Grave Guard for a normal Skeleton unit to correspond to Mantic's Skeleton Revenants. Mantic still wins hands down when you compare prices of units, mostly because GW charges for 10 when you typically need 20, so for nearly every Mantic box I had to count 2 GW boxes; it would be much closer if GW actually put decent numbers in the box, but still not anywhere near getting that many figures for under $200, especially since $120 is the rulebook and army book alone, and that's why Mantic IMO is a much better company, even with flaws of certain figures (which still don't look that bad to me). $175 buys me in; I can get an entire army for the same price as GW's rules and a single unit if I'm lucky. Not to mention the fact the rules are much more streamlined and reward actual tactics and strategy versus penalizing people for not picking certain OP units like WHFB and 40K do.
I could convince a lot more people to play a game if I told them $175 gets them an entire army to play versus a shopping list that comes out to $500 or more.
Whats funny is that GW is planing to reduce unit sizes (decreasing overal model count) and not prices, to make the game more accessible. How many of you want to bet this will put another nail in the coffin and we start seeing alternative armies (mainly mantic) sprout everywhere because they could build them with something like $80-100, so why the hell not make a fully sized army instead of getting 2-3 boxes of marines or what ever have you?.
Personally, for 40k I'd rather go to smaller armies like in 2nd edition, so you need less figures to make a good-sized army. For Fantasy though, i think that will be a mistake. Fantasy has always been visually about the look of massed regiments of troops on the battlefield; reducing the unit size is going to reduce that visual.
It will cut the cost of Fantasy by half (roughly) but won't look as good, and they will likely raise prices again to compensate. I'd rather see for Fantasy them to just up the regiments to 20 for infantry or 10 for cavalry for the same price, so you still cut it in half but keep that feel of an army with regiments. A change like that won't affect 40k though because most of 40k you still use 10 guys and they are still overpriced.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/26 01:23:36
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2014/01/26 01:28:21
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
There's no way smaller games are going to become anything more than an intro game variant. GW have gone too heavily into the other end of the scale when in 40k you have 3 riptides and a wraithknight running around as an army.
I just can't see GW relegating things like that, or the Storm Raven to near enough pure showcase models.
2014/01/26 02:14:46
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
Compel wrote: There's no way smaller games are going to become anything more than an intro game variant. GW have gone too heavily into the other end of the scale when in 40k you have 3 riptides and a wraithknight running around as an army.
I just can't see GW relegating things like that, or the Storm Raven to near enough pure showcase models.
Not smaller per se, but rumor has it there is a mayor overhaul of the system coming this winter (along the new edition), it also has it that they are cutting back in unit sizes to something more akin to 7th or 6th, my guess with out having lesser units becoming yet again irrelevant (alas empire/skaven and so on).
My guess is we are looking at a hybrid 7th and 8th, with many 8th mechanics but in 7th sizes so to speak. Like may be you will get step up but only the front ranks will fight with flanking denying steadfast and no horde, this way busses still matter (for steadfast but only to a point), elites dont get much benefit past the 15-20 model mark (since they dont get extra attacks for additional ranks nor get horde).they are also likely doing away with wheeling as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/26 02:17:39
2014/01/26 02:27:37
Subject: Re:GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
Alert Bay, BC - Home of the Killer Whale/ 'Yalis of the 'Namgis, Band of the Kwa'Kwakawakw FN
Kroothawk wrote: Tom Kirby's response is to blame everyone that blindly followed his orders, like one-man shop staff and all foreign HQs. From now on all false decisions are made directly in Nottingham... like before actually.
So, Tom Kirby is actually Grey Seer Thanquol?
Because in the bizarre world of in which the Design team live; it rains gum drops, Oompa Loompas dance and this makes sense. - Crimson Devil
2014/01/26 04:32:33
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
Is the stock still falling in price? I'm just wondering how low it will go before it starts to bounce back. I'm sure shareholders are pretty upset but if it starts to go lower and lower it might entice gw to make even more drastic changes.
So far there isn't much change I have seen but that's pretty obvious because it hasn't been long enough. They might be thinking that the new revitalization of the white dwarf and the new warhammer visions will maybe bring some new buisness?
Although at the same time they are going to be 4.50 each so that's like 7 dollars a month more if you buy them every week so possibly another scheme.
I'm hoping that they lower the prices with maybe the next release (which will be dwarves in fantasy) if I see lower prices then it will be a great sign. Realistically though I think the changes will take a minimum of 6 months.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/26 05:17:37
2014/01/26 05:38:06
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
MWHistorian wrote: Does anyone think the GW management will actually make some competent moves to turn this situation around?
So far the only reactions we have seen have been to blame everyone but management and cut even more costs by closing more stores and regional HQs. Oh, and changing up white dwarf.
From the looks of it I'd say they are going for more of the same, shrink the business to cut expenses rather than look to get more sales. That kept the stock price up in the past but for a while it was clear it was leading to the current situation, sales have kept falling while GW are running out of ways to cut costs. This latest report shows that we've passed the point where cutting expenses can make the company look healthy on paper yet they seem to be continuing down that road.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
2014/01/26 05:46:56
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
The fact that the new white dwarf is ready for release so soon it can hardly be a response to the financial report and stock fall. A complete reboot like that would have at least 6 months lead time.
2014/01/26 05:47:28
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
I could convince a lot more people to play a game if I told them $175 gets them an entire army to play versus a shopping list that comes out to $500 or more.
Actually playing KoW is way cheaper than that. That 40 man hoard unit can just be done with a few guys scattered across the 200mm x 160mm base. Since there aren't any casualties removed till the entire unit is gone, why get all 40 models? Seeing this being gripped about on other forums where some players are literally using only a single fig per unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Loki- wrote: The fact that the new white dwarf is ready for release so soon it can hardly be a response to the financial report and stock fall. A complete reboot like that would have at least 6 months lead time.
But that doesn't mean they didn't know that the numbers were going to be bad several months ago. The new format was very much in response to lower sales. They probably were seeing poor number already in the first half of last year, but the numbers were masked in the last financial report by the release of 6th Ed 40k.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/26 05:49:32
2014/01/26 06:07:14
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
-Loki- wrote: The fact that the new white dwarf is ready for release so soon it can hardly be a response to the financial report and stock fall. A complete reboot like that would have at least 6 months lead time.
I was under the impression GW knew about these numbers long ago and only now were forced to report them, maybe not six months but long enough that the timing of this WD thing is at least suspicious.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
2014/01/26 06:14:45
Subject: Re:GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
mikhaila wrote: As one point of data i will offer up my own sales. My 2 stores together sell an amount of GW product in the low six figures per year. GW dropped 33% in 2013 sales, vs. 2012. We had been having a slow decline in GW sales before that, but it's accelerating. I attribute this to:
- A lack of GW stock on the wall. They moved so many things (nearly all blisters, many plastic boxes) to mail order that i simply have less things to sell.
-Inability to actually sell a customer a full army due to lack of product. (WFB in particular)
-The complete lack of information and promotional support for new products before their release.
-Increase in price.
There are other factors, but these are the major ones affecting sales.
Thanks for the input Mikhaila. One of my FLGS owners commented the too saw a 25% drop in GW sales over the last year. So GW's claim of the drop being due to the switch to one man stores isn't true. Have other miniature games picked up the loss sales from GW or do you see an overall decline in the miniatures market? The same FLGS stated that while games like WMH are growing, they don't offset the lost GW sales. While the other games have lower entry points, he would need players to pick up multiple systems to offset the GW loss. In contrast, he did expand his MtG section vastly with a lot of used card displays.
As for everyone who praises Mantic and KoW, none of my local stores carry it. All the owners say they don't want to carry stock for a company that throws out sales and specials on a regular basis that undercut them so heavily. They will carry Dreadball, and the other boardgames, but not KoW itself.
Silver_skates wrote:Intangible assets have increased by £2m. I find this interesting because intangible assets are often ways of hiding costs on balance sheet as it is purely on the directors opinion that an intangible can be capitalised. Without detailed reports its impossible to know what has been capitalised or not. My assumption is the spead of producing codexes has led to an increase and an increase in intellectual property which has been capitalised to be written off over its "useful economic life". I would flag this as a red herring in my job. If not capitalised profits would reduce by £5m.
Didn't comment on this earlier, but we could have just seen the CHS legal costs revealed.
Other game companies were pretty much even last year over the year before, with a bit of sales added from Infinity andBolt Action, which we started into this year. Our big growth was in CCG's, predominantly Magic the Gathering. The other growth area was boardgames, with many good games coming out. Tabletop with Will Wheaton is an amazing help selling boardgames.
Mantic does nothing in my stores. I tried to sell it, ordered it all in, and was hoping to do good with it. I like the people in the company. Just could not get sales on the models and had to eventually quit ordering in the new stuff and eat the loss on existing stock.
....and lo!.....The Age of Sigmar came to an end when Saint Veetock and his hamster legions smote the false Sigmar and destroyed the bubbleverse and lead the true believers back to the Old World.
2014/01/26 08:16:06
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
PsychoticStorm wrote: I have yet to see anybody who buys GW models as "models to paint" and not "Models to play their wargames with" that could support the sales they need, Mantic could have been just a miniatures manufacturer making models to be played by other wargames, but they chose to be a wargames manufacturer and they sell a complete system, despite how some people may purchase their products, they will be judged as what they are.
I buy 90% of my miniatures for painting and modeling now. But only because unfortunately I get so few opportunities or time to play. When you buy to model your expenditure goes down yes but I probably buy more quality models, FW etc as I never need mass amounts of models.
If I play a game now with a friend we will decide what we want to play and if we don't own the unit we cut out a bit of paper write whatever the unit is on it and hey presto that's what it is. No way will I ever buy a unit just to only play. To make a full investment I need to love the look of a model.
I know some people would be aghast at this but I dont care. My bank account looks good and I still enjoy my hobby!
You enjoy it so who cares. Why buy models you dislike then spent a huge time investment in painting them if you don't have to.
I buy miniatures for modelling and painting now as well as I can't really go out to play games in stores atm. I still buy build and paint with the idea that I will use them for games at some point though.
2014/01/26 08:56:45
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
Of course some people buy models just for painting and display.
There is a big historical military modelling scene, big enough to support a widely available newsstand magazine in the UK -- which you can’t say about White Dwarf anymore! I might get a copy to check out the huge GW section.
However if GW claim most of their kits are sold to those customers I think they are lying.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I have yet to see anybody who buys GW models as "models to paint" and not "Models to play their wargames with" that could support the sales they need, Mantic could have been just a miniatures manufacturer making models to be played by other wargames, but they chose to be a wargames manufacturer and they sell a complete system, despite how some people may purchase their products, they will be judged as what they are.
I buy 90% of my miniatures for painting and modeling now. But only because unfortunately I get so few opportunities or time to play. When you buy to model your expenditure goes down yes but I probably buy more quality models, FW etc as I never need mass amounts of models.
If I play a game now with a friend we will decide what we want to play and if we don't own the unit we cut out a bit of paper write whatever the unit is on it and hey presto that's what it is. No way will I ever buy a unit just to only play. To make a full investment I need to love the look of a model.
I know some people would be aghast at this but I dont care. My bank account looks good and I still enjoy my hobby!
You enjoy it so who cares. Why buy models you dislike then spent a huge time investment in painting them if you don't have to.
I buy miniatures for modelling and painting now as well as I can't really go out to play games in stores atm. I still buy build and paint with the idea that I will use them for games at some point though.
From an individuals perspective you are correct, who cares, the point is this is not the individuals perspective, but the companies perspective, If GW was a miniatures manufacturer their sales would be directed to individuals buying miniatures to paint and the use of their miniatures in other systems, clearly GW cannot be sustained by sales to the first group and the latter idea is an anathema to them, they manufacture miniatures to be played by their wargames, their rules are made constantly with an initiative to push for purchases of more models, not necessarily the ones the player would like, whatever GW might claim, they are a wargame manufacturer and the "we are first and foremost a miniatures company" in my eyes was always a bad excuse for the sore state their wargame rules were.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/26 10:07:56
2014/01/26 10:08:24
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
timetowaste85 wrote: Compare that to PP prices of similar amounts for an accurate portrayal, as both companies use restic and GW doesn't. Once you compare accurate numbers, people might be interested in seeing your viewpoint as anything other than antagonistic.
Well, PP is occasionally more expensive than GW. Their Colossals are ~10% to 20% more expensive than GW's similarly sized plastic kits, which come with far more options.
If simply being a sliver cheaper than a cherry-picked more expensive competitor is all it takes to be considered "keenly priced", than GW's offerings are keenly priced too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/26 10:08:46
timetowaste85 wrote: Compare that to PP prices of similar amounts for an accurate portrayal, as both companies use restic and GW doesn't. Once you compare accurate numbers, people might be interested in seeing your viewpoint as anything other than antagonistic.
Well, PP is occasionally more expensive than GW. Their Colossals are ~10% to 20% more expensive than GW's similarly sized plastic kits, which come with far more options.
If simply being a sliver cheaper than a cherry-picked more expensive competitor is all it takes to be considered "keenly priced", than GW's offerings are keenly priced too.
Is playing PP games, or CB, or mantic, or wyrd or whoever else, cheaper than playing a GW game? then all these companies are better priced from GW, individual model prices are largely irrelevant from a wargamers perspective.
2014/01/26 10:14:43
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
timetowaste85 wrote: Compare that to PP prices of similar amounts for an accurate portrayal, as both companies use restic and GW doesn't. Once you compare accurate numbers, people might be interested in seeing your viewpoint as anything other than antagonistic.
Well, PP is occasionally more expensive than GW. Their Colossals are ~10% to 20% more expensive than GW's similarly sized plastic kits, which come with far more options.
If simply being a sliver cheaper than a cherry-picked more expensive competitor is all it takes to be considered "keenly priced", than GW's offerings are keenly priced too.
Is playing PP games, or CB, or mantic, or wyrd or whoever else, cheaper than playing a GW game? then all these companies are better priced from GW, individual model prices are largely irrelevant from a wargamers perspective.
Well, I was comparing games to games above, and was accused of "moving goalpost again".
What do you want? Miniatures vs. Miniatures or Games vs. Games?
I can probably find you 10.000 games in 10 minutes that are cheaper than the cheapest game from Mantic Games, half of them absolutely free. Hell, just go to Amazon into the "Toys & Games" category and look up all results under 30 US$. No miniature game is ever "cheap"; if you compare games vs. games, not miniatures vs. miniatures.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/26 10:16:24
If we're going to compare miniatures, at least we should compare them via material. Resin/metal vs. resin/metal and plastic vs. plastic. Of course most of the time plastic models are going to be cheaper than resin and metal models. The question is is GW's plastics cheaper than other plastics on the market?
2014/01/26 10:27:19
Subject: Re:GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
heartserenade wrote: If we're going to compare miniatures, at least we should compare them via material. Resin/metal vs. resin/metal and plastic vs. plastic. Of course most of the time plastic models are going to be cheaper than resin and metal models. The question is is GW's plastics cheaper than other plastics on the market?
Quite the opposite.
As long as you measure things "around" GW, Mantic will be appear to be "relatively" cheap. As said above, that is their schtick. They know they can "look cheap" to GW customers by shadowing their prices, yet still charge a fortune for things. Precisely because most people just take the biased and narrow vision of "GW vs..." in this hobby. They are "free-riding" on GW's pricing policy.
The question is, are Mantic products "cheap" across the board, by an objective measure that covers more than half a dozen companies (or just two, GW vs. Mantic)?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/26 10:28:53
I would be highly ecstatic if we had 10,000 miniature wargames to chose from.
I will not speak of moving goalposts, it has been done to death I can assume, if you want to turn, twist and evade a subject to be on top, feel free.
But the subject is does other wargame companies offer an overall better system from GW at better prices? Yes, they do and they do it in its intended format.
2014/01/26 10:32:16
Subject: GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -
But the subject is does other wargame companies offer an overall better system from GW at better prices? Yes, they do and they do it in its intended format.
No. That is not the subject.
Does Mantic offer better games, experience, etc.. than GW at "less-than-GW-prices"? Yes. They do. I agree wholeheartedly. I play a hell of a lot more Mantic games than GW games these days, and I gladly pay their prices for that experience.
But it is an experience you pay for. It's not cheap, just because it's cheaper than GW. The "Mantic-Hobby" is still an expensive hobby by any sane measure.
EAT - SLEEP - FARM - REPEAT 
